Appeal No. 98-1354
Application 08/218,507
as broadly claimed. We note that the examiner took official
notice in the final rejection that battery operated tools are
old and well known (page 5 of Paper No.6).
It is also appellants’ view that there is no carriage at
all in the Hanaway document for carrying a motor and cutter
(brief, pages 11 and 12). We disagree. The secondary frame 19
can appropriately be viewed as a carriage since it supports
the drive motor at cylinder bore 59 and the cutter at grooves
48, 49.
We are not, however, in accord with the examiner’s assessment
(answer, page 4) that the cylinder 57 (or frame 11) reads on
the claimed carriage. The cylinder 57 is the cylindrical
housing 57 of the drive motor. If this drive motor housing 57
were considered to be a carriage, as per the examiner’s view,
then the drive motor, also claimed, would have to be
inappropriately read on the same component. The examiner also
refers to the frame 11, i.e., the main frame, as the carriage.
However, the main frame is taught as a stationary component,
while appellants’ claimed
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007